The Squeaky Wheel...

You might be interested to know that I saw this starting to be predicted in some liberal journals about 6 months ago.

That is, once Bush's Iraqi adventure had clearly degenerated into a no win quagmire (the inevitability of which was obvious to a lot of us "leftists" at the time), the right would start to shift the blame to that portion of the American people who failed to get behind the program.

In Vietnam they called it "tying our hands", which meant all those filthy hippies in the streets made it politically difficult to nuke 'em back to the stone age.

Hey, and guess what? It was demented bullshit then, and it's demented bullshit now. Bad wars are bad wars. They don't go well because they are not being fought for the right reasons, or because their planners fail to take the measure of the situation correctly, or because they don't have a realistic goal going in, fail to commit sufficient resources, and don't have a metric to know when they've "won".

Blaming the people that notice this for the failures of a doomed enterprise is like blaming the West Nile Virus on the Centers for Disease Control, as if naming a thing conjured it into existence.

Nice. Blame the citizens. :no: Let me guess..."you're either with us or against us".

What did you expect from invading a(deeply divided) country that was no threat to us and without a plan of action as to how to secure it AFTERWARDS taking into consideration religious beliefs and differences among the population and the region itself? Oh yeah, they were all gonna "greet us with roses" so no need to worry right?

No matter the party, it's probably very hard for you to do that I understand, common sense would dictate having a post war plan to secure the peace. The sole fact you're starting a thread that has to do with the mess that Iraq is right now, is enough of a clue that we didn't.

Maybe DUHbya should've listened when he was told he was gonna OWN the country.

By the way, read Addabox's excellent post a couple times. Maybe, or I should say, hopefully, it will all click.

Originally posted by addabox
You might be interested to know that I saw this starting to be predicted in some liberal journals about 6 months ago.

That is, once Bush's Iraqi adventure had clearly degenerated into a no win quagmire (the inevitability of which was obvious to a lot of us "leftists" at the time), the right would start to shift the blame to that portion of the American people who failed to get behind the program.

In Vietnam they called it "tying our hands", which meant all those filthy hippies in the streets made it politically difficult to nuke 'em back to the stone age.

Hey, and guess what? It was demented bullshit then, and it's demented bullshit now. Bad wars are bad wars. They don't go well because they are not being fought for the right reasons, or because their planners fail to take the measure of the situation correctly, or because they don't have a realistic goal going in, fail to commit sufficient resources, and don't have a metric to know when they've "won".

Blaming the people that notice this for the failures of a doomed enterprise is like blaming the West Nile Virus on the Centers for Disease Control, as if naming a thing conjured it into existence. Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

It was the constant barrage of anti-bush detractors including Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Clarke, Gore, just to name but a few, that have put their mugs in front of the camera to influence the American public. Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

There are plenty of things that can be scrutinized simply because our leadership is human, but to call everything that one person does wrong and misguided, simply because your political views are different, and then claim victory when something does go wrong is unpretentiously dishonest.

Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush. So where is the incessant attacks on Kerry by the very same people that constantly flame Bush? The silence is deafening.

Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven

If Kerry had been president he would have proceeded with inspections, and guess what? It's entirely likely that it would have been established that the WOMD weren't there, the ties to al Qaeda weren't there, and the capacity to strike at America wasn't there. Hence: no war.

You're cutting Bush too much slack here: inspections diddetermine there were no WMD's, and that intelligence about WMD's was completely wrong + intelligence always said ties with Al Qaeda were flimsy at best and ties with 9/11 non-existent.

Bush attacked the very first day the troops were in position and ready to go. The whole UN thing was a masquerade. And millions around the world saw that. I've a gut feeling Bush isn't very good at foreign languages, which is too bad, 'cause wir haben das nicht gewusst would fit him perfectly.

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

It was the constant barrage of anti-bush detractors including Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Clarke, Gore, just to name but a few, that have put their mugs in front of the camera to influence the American public. Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

There are plenty of things that can be scrutinized simply because our leadership is human, but to call everything that one person does wrong and misguided, simply because your political views are different, and then claim victory when something does go wrong is unpretentiously dishonest.

Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush. So where is the incessant attacks on Kerry by the very same people that constantly flame Bush? The silence is deafening.

Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven

Your comments read like self-parody.

In fact, you are so well adept at this turn of phrase technique, I may have use for you in my irreverent band of citizen comedians (note: citizenship is not really required).

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah, it is because 30-50% of the US population, and half of their representatives felt uneasy about doing that and let the administration know. Then the President lost some resolve and gave in to the notion that "negotiations" would work, rather than a preemptive strike.

You should be ashamed of yourself NaplesX. You yourself state that "the President lost some resolve" but you still refuse to hold him responsible. Bush made a decision, not 30-50% of the US population. If Bush fucked up, you should have the courage to admit it.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by bunge
You should be ashamed of yourself NaplesX. You yourself state that "the President lost some resolve" but you still refuse to hold him responsible. Bush made a decision, not 30-50% of the US population. If Bush fucked up, you should have the courage to admit it.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. Um, read my previous post.

Originally posted by NaplesX
There are proven ties between Iraq and AQ...
Hook, line and sinker. What a maroon.

Naples. There are proven ties between you and AQ. You just talked about them. That's a connection.

Significance of the connection plays a part here, and to claim that Iraq (as a government, nation or entity of peoples) has a significant enough connection with AQ to censure their actions due to such a connection, is being absolutely, undeniably dishonest.

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am actually leaning more and more away from the notion of a "Left-wing" or "Liberal' media. Although I really don't think that there is a dispute that the majority of media people are liberal. The media overall is simply lazy, regurgitators of gossip and innuendo. The fact that it is made up of mostly liberals does not speak highly of that group. I do believe that there are a small percentage that are strictly politically driven and hiding behind their legitimate press credentials. Of course the rest gladly parrot any information to garner ratings.

But as is usual here, the point that I was making is totally blown out of context. I am thoroughly pissed about the situation with Al-Sadr. I am also disappointed in this admin, or whomever has given into the "talking" notion visa vi Al-Sadr.

But what I and most savvy media types realize is that our leaders are political creatures and can be influenced in any number of ways.

As far as the WMD situation, I predict that they are found outside of Iraq and maybe even used in an attack. Of course everyone will blame Bush for not acting fast enough.

There are proven ties between Iraq and AQ. I assume you're just choosing to ignore that fact...

As far as blaming anyone, I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.

The WOMD won't be found NaplesX.

Get over it.

The thing is there's alot of people out there who don't think any of Bush's agenda is " right ".

You'll just have to deal with that.

Naples. Did you miss the results of those TWO frigging enquiries that declared there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

You've got it so arse-over-tit it'd be funny if there weren't so many other Americans who've been misled so thoroughly, like you - the last poll I remember showed that %67 of Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for the 11th of September 2001.

Your President is a liar, and an effective liar. And you have the gall to bemoan some utterly fictional poll that shows that 'a huge chunk' of your population believes him to have been untruthful.

It's not my fault that this war was so unsuccessful, it's the fault of people like you for supporting action prompted by polity and sold on untruths that don't matter to you even now when more than a thousand of your own citizens have died.

Originally posted by Harald
Naples, would you like to pick 3 posts you made before the Iraq war about what was going to happen, why, and why you were for the war?

I'll pick 3 posts I made.

To turn round now and blame people who predicted this and gave exact reasons when you and Rummy were on cloud fucking cuckoo land is ... typical of you, that's what.

So: direct challenge. You up for reminding everyone how you got it wrong and the people you hate got it right? i would love to, I am not sure if I was commenting on the war when I first started posting on AO, or even on here. I will have to check.

Edit: When did they change the message in the left? It's now back to the way it was before.

<---- Signup date is right here. :)

I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.

Since when did GWB listen to others who opposed his idea? It didn't stop him from going to war with Iraq. Why blame everyone now? Did GWB have a change of heart? Does public/international opinion mean something in the White House? What changed?

Originally posted by talksense101
Since when did GWB listen to others who opposed his idea? It didn't stop him from going to war with Iraq. Why blame everyone now? Did GWB have a change of heart? Does public/international opinion mean something in the White House? What changed? He wants to get re-elected.

Originally posted by NaplesX
He wants to get re-elected.

For the first time you've hit the nail on the head. That's what this all has been about. There was never any WOMD to find. There wasn't any connections between SH and Al Queda etc. It's all been about George seeming like he was doing a necessary job. So he could get reelected.

And that is at it's heart the big problem with having George W Bush in office. He doesn't belong there because he's out for himself not the country.

Originally posted by Powerdoc
When the superior interests of a nations, such as security, are in balance, no such considerations should prevails.

Note that french presidents are not superiors in this matter. Only De Gaulle resigned twice, when he think that there was a contradiction between the two. That's why I respect this man, a man of the old time : an extincted specie. DeGaulle: you are right, no more people with that kind of integrity . . . . it would do a country good to contemplate such figures.
Even if I found his politics a little too conservative, I could still respect him

. . . BTW, the French government (of that era) asked my mother to spy on my father, to keep tabs :wow: :err:
Needless to say, she was absolutely infuriated!!

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Bush is responsible of his actions weither there are bad or goods. He is a president and should be above public opinion : if he is not, he is only a politician seekings votes, and not a countrie leader.

My feelings for Iraq, is that it wasn't workable. I don't blame the current admin in charge of Iraq, for the management : they do their best*. The error was to start this war : you don't transform a tyranny into a democratie with a magical wand.

* it's because they are doing their best, that they do not fall under Saadr, they do not want to turn it into a martyr. Like in the battle of Massada, the symbolic aspect of the war is very important and in many aspects the psychological war is more important than the battlefieds.

I will also add, that Iraq is supposed to have a legitimate governement, helped for security by US troops who have their liberty of action. The decision of catching Saadr, belong to this governement. By saying that US should catch him, you gave reason to many Iraqi people, who think that the Iraq governement is an US puppet, and that US is an invader.
Good points.

However, we had the chance before the hand-over. We did not take it, and partly because of the reasons that I mentioned, IMO.

So when I hear someone use the line that Clinton had a chance to get UBL, the same can now be said of GWB in regards to Sadr. I think it was a bad decision then as well as now. Yes, you are right the onus is on Bush, and he or someone in the admin dropped the ball on this. If this guy Sadr is not taken care of, it will seriously set back the war in Iraq and probably the WOT, IMO.

Resolve has been set aside in favor of getting reelected. I'm not sure if that is the right approach. I don't like it, even though I know it is somethiing that he must do, being an election year and all.

And as far as this war being waged to get re-elected, that is far fetched speculation. If that is true then he would have started this war much closer to election day, if that was the aim. I think the perceived threat of further terror after 9/11 prompted the urgency to remove SH. The WMD issue was blown up by the opposition and thrown to the masses and is being used to bludgeon bush even though it was not the only reason for the war. But that's polotics, right

We Americans love a good scandal to rally around.

Naples, for the love of God, call a doctor. There still may be time.

You wage war to destroy you're enemies. Period.

You wage war to protect yourselves (and perhaps your friends or any innocent party) from harm. But to do so smartly involves a long term calculation of how best to do so while reducing the probability that a sequel will be needed.

As long as people keep reproducing, destroying your enemies has never really worked all that well. Wait a generation and the problem will return if the underlying causes are not addressed. Better to beat them and figure out a way to work with them afterwards (Marshall Plan) so it doesn't happen again. If you just fight them and then put the onus on them for their aggression without reform (Treaty of Versailles) then chances are it will become a problem again in another two decades. If you just fight them but they remain in power (North Korea) then chances are you'll still be posturing with them fifty years later with tens of thousands of troops send overseas as a deterrant and great worry about them attacking again. If you fight them (Gulf War) but then don't support their civilians after calling for them to uprise and don't force a change in leadership then chances are good you'll be back again in another decade to the same place (Iraq War). If you support "freedom fighters" (Afghans in the Soviet-Afghanistan War) but then let their country devolve into a shithole afterwards without intervening then you allow a vacuum for extremists and that is how you wind up back there again (War in Afghanistan). War on the cheap, the blow shit up and then fuck em mentality is how you wind up with long term security problems remaining. No we can't solve every problem easily (North Korea) but if we paid much more attention to some of the conflicts and their aftermaths (Iraq uprising/Afghanistin post-88) and went for real solutions at the right time we could have prevented several other problems that caused us to have to spend soldiers lives and hundreds of billions of bling bling later on.

Naples, look out! Bees! In your head! Bees! Millions of 'em!

Sorry. I forgot that if I want to call people traitors and terrorists who have the blood of innocents on their hands I need to do it in terms of a (wink wink) indeterminate "you"

As in, "you apologists for this war are the lowest form of scum".

Which is so much nicer than joking around.

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah that would be ideal, except the kind of intel we needed was not available. And that was a result of what presidency? Not this one. LMAO. Of course, Chalabi's and "Curveball's" was good enough eh? To this date, your hero DUHbya hasn't done shit to improve
intelligence. The irony. I hope that if Kerry gets the job, he will not attack anyone until the facts on the ground are all there. That could be what... 10 to 20 years? I hope so too. As long as we don't send brave Americans who have the balls to serve, (unlike couch hawks like yourself), to die unnecessarily when there is time to gather more intelligence and build real meaningful coalitions, I'll be happy.
Doubt Kerry is that kind of lying scumbag to do that. But you never know. He might be stupid enough to rely on "intelligence" provided by "Curveball" type "informants" again. Nah.
You forgot to stick your tongue out at me. Welcome back to the 4th grade. Good thing you are there to greet him. Who do you suggest I vote for? Stick to voting for the kid running for 4th grade class president.

The more I read posts on here, the more I start to believe that indeed moderates and "lefties" are the intellectual elite. :lol:

Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, go back and read the speeches given and then read the opposition's reaction and note how it is slowly blown out of proportion buy the Dems and the Far Left. Look at the polls in regard to the war along side of the vocal opposition by the left and far left together.

If you don't want to do it yourself, let me know. I will start another thread with links and facts behind my thesis.
Oh Jesus.

Do you remember Colin Powell's speech to the UNSC? Do you remember that test-tube of 'anthrax' he held up? Do you remember those satellite photographs of 'mobile biological warfare wotnots'?

Here, (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php) as a last-ditch attempt to circumvent this terrible dishonesty, is UN Resolution 1441. You will note its heavy emphasis ON CUNTING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

This. Stupid. Sad. Fucking. Mess. Of. A. War. Was. Fought. To. Disarm. Saddam. Of. His. Weapons. Of. Mass. Frigging. Destruction.

What's that Rummy? You want me to go shoot dogs?No no no. Don't hurt innocent animals. You can do something constructive instead. All of mankind must do their part to contribute to rebuilding Afghanistan. Don't shoot dogs, shoot heroin.

Originally posted by NaplesX

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.



Naples X:

Now please prove, conclusively, that Bush didn't lie. You can't, period, even if he never did. It is a meaningless statement that has no logical basis. It is the same as asking the Iraqi regime to prove that they had no WMD. They coudn't, even if they didn't.

Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, go back and read the speeches given and then read the opposition's reaction and note how it is slowly blown out of proportion buy the Dems and the Far Left. Look at the polls in regard to the war along side of the vocal opposition by the left and far left together.

If you don't want to do it yourself, let me know. I will start another thread with links and facts behind my thesis.

Funny how myself and many I know personally came to that conclusion on our own!

Lame,, Lame, LAME !:no:

Originally posted by NaplesX
I would be glad to, in another thread and when I have some time.

But, the thread at hand is the fact that our political leadership are jelly-spined chicken littles. The fact that they start politically driven movements with the help of the clueless media with the sole purpose of changing policy and influencing foreign policy.

The overblown and exaggerated consequences of taking out Sadr who, at the time, was a small problem, is now a big problem only threatening to get bigger.

Today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0408120290aug12,1,3690652.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

The same outcomes were predicted a year ago, but of course now the prediction are even worse.

Previous: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040406-034257-1176r.htm

Why our leaders refer to everything as "Holy" this and "Holy" that. They constantly discredit Iraqi's ability to see what is really going on - Al-Sadr has turned that mosque into a military base, against all Muslim sensibilities. A place of worship does not define a faith, that is just silly.

Is the left really that out of touch with reality?

You do realize you quoted two Conservative publications which essentially say what most of us anti-this-war people have been saying for a year. You've torpedoed your own argument there killer.

Read this again:

Previous: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040406-034257-1176r.htm

Why our leaders refer to everything as "Holy" this and "Holy" that. They constantly discredit Iraqi's ability to see what is really going on - Al-Sadr has turned that mosque into a military base, against all Muslim sensibilities. A place of worship does not define a faith, that is just silly.

Is the left really that out of touch with reality?

emphasis added.

Who are or leaders? Who is in charge of the war? Hmmmm I'd say the Bush admin is. Did you read the UPI article? If you did I don't think you would have used it as a source because it shows the level of incompetence in our military decision makers. The UPI article uses Kennedy's statements as a glue theme but does not indite them as unnecessary or inaccurate. In fact the article closes by say that the statement may actually come true.
Saddam's capture, as we predicted at the time in UPI Analysis, turned out to be no more than a hiccup in the ongoing guerrilla war. But Sadr's death could ignite a conflagration. Then, Sen. Kennedy's "Vietnam" rhetoric could be fulfilled almost immediately. It could even turn out far worse.

The fact the Kennedy called the Iraq conflict Bush's Vietnam in no way mitigates the Bush admins responsibility for letting this country turn out the way it has. Bush sent too few troops to keep the peace. Bush allowed the country to fall into pockets of disarray. Bush is responsible for the situation with Sadr, not Sen. Kennedy.

I didn't read the tribune because I was too lazy to go to bugmenot.

This whole thread is sad Naples because as others have pointed out you are trying to hold those against the war to a higher standard than those for it. We who opposed it where right. We did not decide how many troops to send Bush did. We did not decide how to run this war Bush did. We only said nothing good can come of it. That turned out to be true. Instead of looking to Bush for running this war in a slip-shot manner you now point your dirty little finger at us because we where right. The gall is amazing.

Let me say this again--Bush decided to go to war not me. Bush decided to send too few troops to effectivly secure the country after it was toppled not me. Bush has tried to run this war on the cheap not me. Bush is responsible for this war not me. I take credit for seeing the outcome proir to the war and choosing to be against it; however, the responsability for the war and its outcome do not fall at my door step. That responsability falls exclusevly at 1600 Pannsylvania Ave there killer.

Stop pointing your finger at others when you where the one pro war. The responsability for this war and its current standing is yours and your kind because you suppoerted it from the get go without analyzing the outcome. You are to one responsible for Sadr not me. You are responsible for the daily attacks and deaths not me.

Originally posted by NaplesX
let's try to stay on subject.

Hint: I work for a living and our area just got hit by a hurricane and i am exceptionally busy these days, so i can only post in spurts.

I suppose I will have to show proof of this too?

Sorry you have to post between wind gusts!

I work for a living also just at a different time! I don't remember getting cut some slack for working late hours and not being able to post!

Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry you have to post between wind gusts!

I work for a living also just at a different time! I don't remember getting cut some slack for working late hours and not being able to post! I am not sure that I ever gave you grief about when or how many times you post. I thought that was one of the benefits of a forum, being able to past at you own leisure, no?

So, if I'm following you here, Naples:

Before the war turned out like its critics said it would, those opposed were traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

Now that the war has turned out like its critics said it would, the blame lies with those who opposed it because they didn't do a better job of opposing it.

Really nothing to say.

I think this is what they call " Dancing on the head of a pin ".

;)

Originally posted by addabox
Sure I can.

Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war. That authorization explicitly called for exhausting all other possibilities before taking that measure.

Bush is the one who terminated inspections and charged on in.

Or as the Kerry bumper sticker puts it: "I voted to give Bush authorization. Then Bush fucked it up" That is an open ended argument.

If the specific steps were laid out for him to accomplish then you may have an argument, but that language was not there.

I am sure that you can guess that Sen. Kennedy's view of "all possibilities" might differ from GWB's, no?

Not only that, the rules have changed and continue to change as far as what is "all possibilities" might mean. The whole "oil-for-food" scandal, does that not shed a different light on some things?

Edit: Meaning that maybe the UN is not the best entity to enforce anything since it seems that they are just as or even more corruptible than those they wish to govern.

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Totally off topic, I visited your site, and I discovered that I took pictures of the french alp cousin of the Tiger lys : Lys martagon.

Are you happy with PBase, I am tempted to be a member.

Ah tiger lilies are amongst my favorites. But any wildflower will do.

I'm pretty happy with it. There are a few minor shortcomings but nothing major and mostly they are higher end features someone like me does not need. I would recommend it. You can try it out for free for a month with some limitations. I think there are some features that are then not present but at least it gives you an idea of the interface and software.

Originally posted by giant
According to Chalabi. Don't forget what happened last time you let him lead you guys around by the nads. Also, last I checked your source (who, incidentally, refuses to provide evidence) was a conivted felon (for fraud) with a warrant for his arrest and, according to US officials, an anti-US spy, all rolled into one.

Who's anti-american now, napes? Nice job regurgitating unsubstantiated info from a con artist enemy of the US. Maybe he'll set you up with a nice home in Iran since you are such a fan of his work. I am not sure what you are talking about.

There are 8 official investigations into the UNOFF program. That is not to even mention the countless reporters and others looking for answers.

Not all of these are based on one man's info. I hope that you don't believe that they are.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/436zhuju.asp?pg=2

I know it is not directly related but it points out some interesting facts alongside of some interesting theories.

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, here's you said:

when we're talking about Clinton, you said

When we're talking about Bush, you said:

Care to explain why Clinton deserves your wrath but Bush gets a free pass?

Cheers
Scott

PS
On a more serious note, NaplesX, I hope that you and yours are OK down there. It looks awful. No wrath here. Just trying to be fair.

Truth is no-one is perfect. Not Bush, not Clinton and not Kerry. I am so sick of the "Blame Bush/Blame America" garbage.

You know if you applied the same type of logic, you could actually put a heap of blame on Kerry, since he has been a representative on a national level for 30 years. Some seem to give him a pass, forgetting that he was involved in many national security and intel issues over the years. He has some responsibility as to the direction this nation is taking. Arguably more so than Bush. Although really my point is, blame is a never ending game. Let's just fix problems as they come up or work to prevent them, that is what Americans have been good at in throughout history.

I think that Clinton, Bush, and Kerry all are good men and want what is best for their country. I also believe that one of those men has the broader vision of a leader, beyond some lifelong dream to be president or the desire to attain enough power to get the adoration of young women, not that those are bad goals, though. Just that I am not sure that they can coexist in that office post 9/11.

Hey thanks for the kind thoughts. Though my place was generously spared by Charley but it rapidly gets worse as you go north.

BTW: You can't just google your way out of not knowing what you are talking about. The accusations specifically about UN corruption come from documents that Chalabi refuses to let anyone see. Next try try googling for "clue." Or you can just ask your buddy Chalabi when you solidify your anti-american allegiances by moving in with him in Iran.

Originally posted by giant
BTW: You can't just google your way out of not knowing what you are talking about. The accusations specifically about UN corruption come from documents that Chalabi refuses to let anyone see. Next try try googling for "clue." Or you can just ask your buddy Chalabi when you solidify your anti-american allegiances by moving in with him in Iran. Giant,

I like to look at all thing in life as a learning experience. For example take this place - I used to take things that you said very personal. I used to lash back at you when you made statements like that. I have learned that this place, while being a place that some people go to get away with things that they cannot in real life, most people here are honest and good people. I have even made friends with some that have opposing views to mine.

But one thing sticks out in my mind, that is - Isn't it amazing how freely we all can express our views, no matter how far fetched or ill-conceived they may be, all without the fear that our government will come knocking on our door simply because our views differ from those in power. That is the true definition of freedom, IMO.

I don't know everything and I may be wrong at times, but I have always tried to learn something from everything around me.

So, if you must call me names and hint at my lack of brains so that you get whatever frustrations out, so be it.

As far as Chalabi goes, i am not sure that we dissagree about him that much. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by NaplesX
No wrath here. Just trying to be fair.

Truth is no-one is perfect. Not Bush, not Clinton and not Kerry. I am so sick of the "Blame Bush/Blame America" garbage.

The problem is that that's not what you said. At all. You seem willing to blame the previous administration for whatever is convenient, while you insist that the current administration ought to be cut slack.

You know if you applied the same type of logic, you could actually put a heap of blame on Kerry, since he has been a representative on a national level for 30 years.

He's only one Senator out of 100. Unless he has some kind of super-vote I'm not aware of.

Some seem to give him a pass, forgetting that he was involved in many national security and intel issues over the years.

Again. One Senator. Don't forget the others on the various committees.

He has some responsibility as to the direction this nation is taking.

Yes. Because he was involved.

Arguably more so than Bush.

No. Bush started this war all on his own. He didn't have to. Kerry wasn't standing behind him, poking him with a pointy stick. This war is Bush's war: he wanted it, the Congress granted him the authority, ultimately, to do it, and he did. And now it's horribly screwed up because a) the NeoCon theory seems to have failed on all accounts and b) Rummy is trying to cram institutional changed down the throat of the military, and those don't seem to have worked, either.

Although really my point is, blame is a never ending game.

That's a far cry from "the buck stops here." I swear to God, as I said in another thread, I can't figure you conservatives out. The cognitive dissonance is absolutely palpable. You hated Clinton for the dissembling and refusal to take the blame. And you give Bush a pass for what is TANGIBLY worse. Make up your minds.

Let's just fix problems as they come up or work to prevent them, that is what Americans have been good at in throughout history.

Yes. And by the way, welcome to politics: we disagree about how they ought to be fixed or prevented.

I think that Clinton, Bush, and Kerry all are good men and want what is best for their country. I also believe that one of those men has the broader vision of a leader, beyond some lifelong dream to be president or the desire to attain enough power to get the adoration of young women, not that those are bad goals, though. Just that I am not sure that they can coexist in that office post 9/11.

I was going to attack this (you can imagine how), but I'll refrain. I think you're right, in some ways. I think Bush is certainly a man of vision. This makes me unpopular among my lefty friends. The problem with Bush's vision is this:

1) It doesn't seem to work.

2) When it doesn't work, he is so determined to be "consistent" that he will not modify it.

Those are your options, if you're a conservative, I guess: you can vote for a flip-flopper who modifies and responds to change and nuance or you can vote for someone so stubborn he doesn't see the quagmire until he's up to his eyeballs in it.

Hey thanks for the kind thoughts. Though my place was generously spared by Charley but it rapidly gets worse as you go north. [/B]

I'm seriously glad to hear it. I used to live close to the Gulf Coast (60 miles north of it, actually) and I've seen what hurricanes can do. I hope the cleanup isn't too bad.

Cheers
Scott

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0501delay.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/22/wirq122.xml
Earth to Naples! That "list" came from Chalabi and his documents that he has yet to produce. Hell, and those articles are even so old they are still talking about KPMG. :rolleyes:

Put google down, take a deep breath, sit back and learn.

Originally posted by NaplesX
This Al-Sadr thing pisses me off so much that I scream at the TV when I hear this crap. It was a mistake that this admin made not to get him. I hope he takes the guy out. I just don't see it happening.
You know that your buddy Chalabi aligned himself with al-sadr, don't you?

As for the rest of your thread, it's an attack based on a clearly false premise, so you should be thankful anyone is feeding you.

Originally posted by giant
You know that your buddy Chalabi aligned himself with al-sadr, don't you?

As for the rest of your thread, it's an attack based on a clearly false premise, so you should be thankful anyone is feeding you. Now I did not know that he aligned himself with Sadr, yet I can believe it. He is a scum-bag. They tend to flock like that.

I think the thread is valid based on my observations, but you are obviously free to disagree.

Originally posted by giant
Saddam's "sophisticated money laundering system."

Man, you can't even keep track of your own arguments. :no: Look, I just realized it was almost 3:00 AM here.

Once again you lost me...

In one of those articles they point out that they found trails to Syria and Iran and others (details are alluding me) and they describe it as sophisticated. Now, to correct your statement I didn't even mention SH, and I certainly did not attribute the "system" to him.

Besides my point wasn't that anyway. It was that there is more out there than just Chalabi's accusations.

Gotta go, have a good night, Dude.